LISA GILL, CJ.

Present petition has been filed by petitioners who are all retired government employees earlier serving the State of Andhra Pradesh in various capacities challenging validity of Rule 18 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Pensions (Commutation) Rules, 1944.

2. Issue raised for consideration in present petition is as to whether stipulation of a period of 15 years under Rule 18 for restoration of commuted portion of pension is arbitrary, unreasonable and leads to unjust enrichment of the State. Petitioners seek a direction to respondents to restore their full pension after 11 years and 3 months. It is brought to our notice that all petitioners have opted for commutation of pension on their retirement.

3. Various arguments have been raised on behalf of petitioners for challenging validity of Rule 18 of the 1944 Rules. However, learned counsel for petitioners is unable to deny that question sought to be adjudicated is no longer res integra. W.P.No.24822 of 2024 and a number of other connected writ petitions were filed by persons identically situated as present petitioners, challenging validity of Rule 18 of the 1944 Rules, on similar grounds.

4. All the said petitions were dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 28.04.2025 in Thupakula Venkateswara Rao & others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others [W.P.No.24822 of 2024 & batch]. Division Bench in above mentioned cases after detailed consideration including reference to judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, judgment of Delhi High Court in Forum of Retired IPS Officers v. Union of India [2019 SCC OnLine Del 6610], involving an identical issue, besides recommendations of 11th Pay Revision Commission, finding no merits therein dismissed said writ petitions. It is categorically held therein that policy of the State underlying the Rule is based on a number of circumstances on facts and law including constraints based on its resources, and no ground was made out for any interference.

5. A similar challenge raised before the Punjab and Haryana High Court was also rejected vide decision dated 27.11.2024 in Shila Devi and others Vs. State of Punjab and others and connected matters [CWP No.9426 of 2023 & batch]. Therein too, it was held that matters relating to commutation of pension are complex affairs involving vexed issues, traversing diverse fields which call for application of specialised expertise and that in such matters Court would venture to interfere only in cases of manifest and apparent arbitrariness. SLP(C) Diary No.10704 of 2025 filed before Hon’ble the Supreme Court challenging said decision dated 27.11.2024 was dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners are indeed unable to deny that the matter is squarely covered against petitioners though it is submitted that SLP(C) No.26631 of 2025 titled B. Apparao Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others is pending adjudication before Hon’ble the Supreme Court after issuance of notice. However, learned counsel inform that there is no interim order passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the said SLP.

7. Keeping in view factual matrix as above and specifically dismissal of writ petitions preferred by persons identically situated as the present petitioners by a Division Bench of this Court, we do not find any justification for continuation of present proceedings.

8. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed in terms of decision dated 28.04.2025 in Thupakula Venkateswara Rao & others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others [W.P.No.24822 of 2024 & batch]. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.